So last year, I made a big long video series outlining all the reasons I
thought the Hobbit films were less than great, and you guys had lots and lots and
lots of things to say about it. A lot of people agreed with me, a lot of people
politely disagreed with me, and a whole bunch of you were completely illegible.
"You sir are a idiot you don't know what the L you're talking about." What the hell
does "what the L" mean? But there's been some interesting developments with the
Hobbit since I made the review last April, which have been the source of a
lot of comments. One: the release of the extended editions. And two: that Peter
Jackson admitted that he had no idea what the L he was doing while making the
films. In the third part of my review, unresolved plot lines, I talked about
five story threads that go completely unresolved by the end of the theatrical
release. The most important one being that the Arkenstone, the focal point of
the entire trilogy, disappears into Bard's pocket halfway through the movie, and we
never find out what happens to it or who gets any of the other treasure in the
mountain, all of which amounts to the main conflict of the film. Now many
people have pointed out to me that this is resolved in the extended editions as
are the other plot lines I mentioned, so am i celebrating that the movie is
quote-unquote fixed? No. In fact, I do not care about the extended editions. When
you go to see a movie in theaters, in this case, the final installment to a
story you've now paid to see three separate times,
there should be an unspoken promise between the creators of a film and its
audience, that the conflicts raised in the film will be adequately resolved by
the end of the movie. If this promise is broken, the movie has failed in a pretty
major way. So my review is specifically made as a reaction to this broken
promise in the theatrical release. In fact, the review might not even exist if
we had found out about the Arkenstone. That missing element was the impetus for
the rest of my analysis, because there was nothing subjective about it. It's
something that is objectively missing, and because of that, it allowed me to
look back at the preceding nine hours of film with the confidence that I wasn't
the only person who had felt unsettled by the film, and that I could
make a compelling argument about it. But back to the extended editions, I find the
fact that the concluding scenes were barred off by another paywall, that I
have to pay a fourth time to see the actual endings of the story, even more
egregious than if the theatrical edition was just poorly written. This just means
that they amputated a finished and complete film and served it up in the
guise of a completed movie in the theaters, just so they can charge me one
more time. And that's extra annoying, seeing as they advertised the Battle of
the Five Armies with the phrase "join the final journey to middle-earth." I guess
the final journey was actually going to HMV to overpay for a movie I've already
seen 90% of. And it's for that reason that I am not buying the extended
edition for the Battle of the Five Armies. I'm not watching it. I simply am
NOT interested in it any longer. The movies have lost my interest. But Sage! Some of
you said, "what about the extended editions for the Lord of the Rings! You
like those right?" Here's the difference. With the possible exception of Saruman's
death, none of the scenes in the extended edition are necessary when it comes to
the main plot of the film. Even in the case of Saruman, we see him defeated at
the end of the Two Towers, which is a resolution to the conflict he introduced
into the story. So when Return of the King starts up, we
don't need more Saruman. It's nice, but it's not necessary. Just like the other
extra scenes. "But sage!" some of you said. "You reference parts of the extended
editions for the first two Hobbit movies. Isn't that hypocritical of you?" Here's
the thing, it would have been academically irresponsible of me to
ignore the extended editions of "An Unexpected Journey" and "The Desolation of
Smaug," when making this review. I wanted to consult every scrap of information in
detail available about the film's at the time that I was making the review, to
give the fullest possible study of the subject. Also as a fan, while I think that
the trilogy as a whole failed, those films at least interested me enough to
seek out additional material in preparation for the final installment. A
Battle Of The Five Armies did not put the desire in me to go back to that
story. As far as where the arkenstone ends up, what happens to Alfrid, what
Beorn does after inexplicably surviving a free fall off of an eagle, I am no
longer interested enough to spend another three hours finding out. The
other important development is that we now have a much clearer picture of what
was going on behind the scenes of The Hobbit, which goes a long way
towards explaining why the films ended up the way they did. Jackson: "I didn't know what
the hell I was doing." To summarize all of it, basically the
entire pre-production and production was rushed after Guillermo Del Toro dropped
out of the film, because jackson basically had to jump into a film
already in motion, but then he also wanted to make a film that fit his own
vision, resulting in him making up the movie as they went along. When you're
going onto a set, very complicated, and you're winging it, you've got nothing
to go on. No storyboards. No previous... You've got these messy complicated
scenes, you're just making it up there and then on the spot. If I was a director
that hadn't had 25 years of experience doing this in the past, it
would have just been almost impossible." By the time they got to the Battle of
the Five Armies, the second unit headed by Andy Serkis was basically just
shooting a bunch of b-roll of guys swinging green screen swords around
because no one knew how the battle itself would work, or where anything
would fit. Serkis: "We were beginning to just Bank whole load of of firefight elements."
Producer: the actual battle itself was a mystery to us. We didn't know what we were doing."
Jackson: I was able to wing it right up until the point that I had to start shooting this
very intricate battle. I couldn't wing that really. I did
need to know what the hell I was doing and have a plan." Eventually Jackson
postponed shooting, so he could clear his head and write the last part of the
movie, so there's this weird moment where Andy Serkis learns that they're
canceling the shoot, and everyone is like Orc: "But I spent eight hours putting this costume on."
as they kind of sadly just shuffle off of the set. It was every
problem you can imagine facing on a film. Jackson: I
spent so much to the Hobbit feeling like I was not on top of it, but the fact
that I hadn't had much prep, and I was making it up as I went along, and even from a
script point of view, Philippa and I hadn't really got the entire scripts
written all the way through to our satisfaction. So that was a very
high-pressure situation." And here's what I want to say about all this. I commend
Jackson for flat-out admitting the struggles he faced on the film. Really!
You rarely see that kind of honesty, and I really do have sympathy for him for
the situation and the stress it must have been to deal with it. But that also
does not change my opinion of the quality of the films at all. Look. Here's
why I made my review. It was an exercise for me to figure out
what the difference was between good filmmaking and bad filmmaking in as much
detail as possible, and 2, to hopefully provide other people, maybe even people
who are aspiring filmmakers, suggestions on how to avoid those pitfalls. And 3,
to give some catharsis to people who didn't like the movies. It was more
useful to me to figure out exactly why I thought the goblin chase scene for
example, lacked tension than it is to simply throw my hands up and say "well
there were problems behind the scenes so it doesn't really matter." What I will say
though is that during the review, I refer to Jackson as if he is the sole author
of these movies. For me, that's a convenience to use when critiquing them,
to keep my points succinct. So while I think that the points I made about the
film's quality stand, who those mistakes are attributed to is more complicated
than "Jackson dun goofed." In the end, this really comes down to how you choose to
look at film. With one eye, you can recognize all the struggles and issues
behind the scenes and the complicated nature of authorship in this medium, but
that doesn't stop you from seeing with the other eye, the film totally detached
from the events that created them, and as a complete pieces of our culture. It's
important to use both viewpoints, but one does not need to influence the other.
Because the movie shouldn't be exempt from criticism or analysis simply
because it didn't turn out the way the director would have wanted under perfect
conditions. In fact, it is even more interesting to study since "big-budget
films ruined by studio bickering" might as well be a sub-genre at this point. So
that's it for the Hobbit. That is the last thing I will say about those films.
Thank you so much for all the people who watch the review, and all of those who
continue to debate it kindly. I joked earlier about illegible comments, but
they have actually been a very small minority. Most of the comments I get are
courteous and thoughtful and nuanced and it means a lot to me to develop a
community of people who can have rational debates on the Internet. There
was one comment though that, to this day, might be the funniest thing I've ever
read. "I agree the Hobbit sucks but the books
suck even more since reading is just bullshit." Thanks for the comment Mr.
Trump. So one last thing before I go. If you're a longtime viewer of this channel,
make sure to click like on the Facebook page since it is by far the best way to
find out about new videos. It's also the best way to contact
me directly. And I love debating films with you guys, so I hope to see you there.
Take care everyone and I'll see you in the next video or on Facebook.